GitHub and Microsoft are being sued for using open source software without creator attribution in alleged violation of open licensing requirements. What implications does this have for the scholarly literature and Creative Commons licenses?
I didn’t want to call it good or bad (this is how things have to go, given the situation), but rather just that there is a certain irony here.
Both, in that open-source folks are now calling for stronger enforcement of copyright when it was born out of a fight against copyright, but also that Microsoft can now be sued due to the aggressive copyright laws they lobbied into place.
I’m actually talking about the time before that, because as you say, GNU provided the solution of utilizing copyright to fight copyright.
In the 60s and 70s, software was largely either included with a specific piece of hardware (i.e. had virtually no value without it), or it was developed in academia. This came with a culture of people just sharing software without any regards for copyright and whatnot.
And then of course, some time later, you had the origin story of Stallman, where his printer didn’t work, he fixed the software and helpfully sent the patch to the printer manufacturer, who then threatened to sue him for violating their copyright.
So, Stallman and his movement really wanted the old hacker culture back where copyright didn’t limit their freedom. And then out of necessity, they utilized copyright to fight itself.
Quite ironic that open-source is now calling for stronger enforcement of copyright to protect ourselves from profiteering arseholes, namely Microsoft.
Last century, calling for stronger enforcement of copyright was done by the profiteering arseholes, namely Microsoft.
deleted by creator
I didn’t want to call it good or bad (this is how things have to go, given the situation), but rather just that there is a certain irony here.
Both, in that open-source folks are now calling for stronger enforcement of copyright when it was born out of a fight against copyright, but also that Microsoft can now be sued due to the aggressive copyright laws they lobbied into place.
deleted by creator
I’m actually talking about the time before that, because as you say, GNU provided the solution of utilizing copyright to fight copyright.
In the 60s and 70s, software was largely either included with a specific piece of hardware (i.e. had virtually no value without it), or it was developed in academia. This came with a culture of people just sharing software without any regards for copyright and whatnot.
That might have eventually shifted on its own, but it was also specifically Microsoft that pushed for a less open culture, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
And then of course, some time later, you had the origin story of Stallman, where his printer didn’t work, he fixed the software and helpfully sent the patch to the printer manufacturer, who then threatened to sue him for violating their copyright.
So, Stallman and his movement really wanted the old hacker culture back where copyright didn’t limit their freedom. And then out of necessity, they utilized copyright to fight itself.